THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE GESTALT TWO CHAIR
COUNSELING TECHNIQUE IN REDUCING PAPER PRESENTATION
ANXIETY
A Thesis
Presented to
the Division of Psychology and Special Education
EMPORIA STATE UNIVERSITY
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Science
by
Lou Talbot
October, 1989
AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF
Lou Talbot for the Master of Science in
Psychology OCtober 9, 1989presented on
Title: THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE GESTALT TWO CHAIR
COUNSELING TECHNIQUE IN REDUCING PAPER
PRESENTATION ANXIETY
Abstract approved: ~,d ~ Conflict is defined as simultaneous arousal of
two or more incompatible motives (Houston, 1985).
The Gestalt two chair technique resolves conflict by
using "dramatization" to allow the individual to view
their cognitions from different perspectives. Conflict
resolution is characterized by reduced anxiety and
elevated performance and mood. Decision making also
causes anxiety, especially when decision choices are
unknown as they are in a novel task.
The present study attempted to determine the
effectiveness of the Gestalt two chair technique
in reducing the conflict produced by performing a
novel task, presenting a paper at a conference.
Given the documented effectiveness of the
technique in resolving other types of conflict,
the present study hypothesized that exposure to
1 -gO470723 DP JU~
the intervention would reduce the conflict caused
by deciding to present the paper.
Two groups of subjects were randomly assigned to
the control or treatment groups. Control subjects
completed the pretests, presented their paper and
completed the posttests. Experimental subjects
followed the same sequence except exposure to the two
chair technique was introduced between the pretest and
presentation phase. Results indicated a reduction in
anxiety and elevation of performance and mood.
However, a methodological flaw confounded the effect of
the treatment with the presentations. Suggestions for
correcting the flaw are discussed.
>~ Approved for the Major Division
ApnPoved for the Graduate Council
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES. iv
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION. · 1
2. METHOD. . . • . . · 6
SUbjects . · 6
Design . · 6
Materials... · 6
Procedure. · • • 7
3. RESULTS . . 12
4. DISCUSSION. . 20
REFERENCES. 23
APPENDICES:
A. Human Research Approvals. 25· · · · · B. State Anxiety Scale . . . 26· · · · · C. Likert Performance Scale. 27· · · · · D. Wessman And Ricks Mood Scale. 28· · · E. certification Letter. . . · · · · 29·
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. The Technique X Test Analysis of Variance For Anxiety.. 13
2. Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3. The Technique X Test Analysis of Variance For Performance . • . . . • • . • 15
4. Means and Standard Deviation: Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5. The Technique X Test Analysis of Variance For Mood ... 17
6. Means and Standard Deviation: Mood. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7. The Pearson Correlation Coefficients. 19
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Dr. Kenneth A. Weaver for
the time and effort spent to fulfill my need of
producing quality research. without his guidance and
knowledge in experimental psychology I would not have
been able to obtain this level of achievement. The
instruction, mentoring, and patience of this
individual were of the highest level.
In addition, I would also like to thank my other
two committee members who endured the prolonged
effort of this thesis. without the support of Dr.
David Dungan and Dr. Philip Wurtz I would not have
been able to endure the frustrations of accomplishing
this task.
Dr. Stephen F. Davis cannot go without his due
expression of gratitude for his subtle assistance
throughout my program of study. No finer friend,
mentor, advisor, professor, and experimenter was
found during my arduous task as a graduate student.
I cannot thank Dr. Davis, Dr. Holmes, Dr. Joseph, Jim
Shepard, Dr.' Karr, and Dr. Karst, and so many
others enough for shaping my professional future and
molding me into the individual that will humbly
continue the traditions learned.within the psychology
division.
I would like to thank Peg Martin and Frank
Naylor for their judgement in placing me with their
fine organization. Their support during my
completion of this thesis was appreciated enormously.
The Farm, Incorporated, has allowed my personal
expression as a new professional.
Finally, I would like to thank the one person in
my life that contributed the most to my capabilities
as an individual both academically and personally.
Sharon Ames has been so very patient, understanding,
and supportive of my endeavors in both areas. The
financial and moral support from her will forever be
remembered.
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Conflict is defined as simultaneous arousal of two
or more incompatible motives (Houston, 1985). As a
means of resolving personal problems resulting from
conflict, the Gestalt two chair technique requires
individuals to resolve their personal problems by
performing, with the guidance of the therapist, a
"dramatization" of their problems. The word
"dramatization" is used because the clients change
roles several times during the clarification of the
problem. The therapist acts much like the director of
a drama, guiding the client through role transitions
while clarifying statements and providing feedback.
Anxiety reduction, improved client performance, and
more positive mood are important indicators of this
therapy's effectiveness (Greenberg & Webster, 1982).
The originator of the two chair technique, Moreno
(1946), believed that conflict arises from inaccurate
interpretations of social interactions. As a result of
this conflict, an individual's anxiety level increases
and mood state'becomes more negative. Therapy is
necessary to relieve the anxiety that results from some
conflict that needs to be resolved within the
individual. Restructuring of old cognitive patterns
2
with the aid of individual dramatic interaction, group
feedback, and role playing allow the individual to
reduce anxiety and, thus alleviate conflict (Greenberg
& Webster, 1982; Moreno, 1946).
Moreno's (1946) auxiliary chair method features
clients sitting in one of two facing chairs on a
minimally furnished stage, describing their conflict in
detail. The therapist uses clients' recollections to
facilitate memory (Tulving & Thomson, 1973) and to
physically alter the initial setting in a manner
congruent with their recollections. The stage lighting
is also varied by the therapist to facilitate the
re-enactment. In order to experience a different
perspective on their past, clients are instructed to
play a role other than their own when they occupy the
empty or auxiliary chair opposite themselves. By
understanding the stressful social interaction from a
new prospective, the clients attempt to better
understand how and why they initially interpreted the
social interaction inaccurately.
Fritz Perls' (1965) hot seat technique modifies
Moreno's auxiliary chair technique by emphasizing the
self-exploration in a group rather than the client
only setting. Distressed clients take turns sitting
next to the therapist while facing an empty chair.
3
Different parts of their conflict can be confronted
while moving between the two chairs and receiving
encouragement or criticism from group members. Perls
(1965) believed that mental wholeness (i.e., mental
health) required the identification and subsequent
integration of a person's ideas, emotion, and actions.
The stress caused by an absence of integration is the
primary indicator of psychological distress. This lack
of integration, also referred to as polarity, can be
conceptualized as a distance separating two opposing
ideas, emotions, or actions. since this polarity
retards integration, attaining wholeness is impaired,
thus producing psychological distress or anxiety. The
distress caused by polarity is equivalent to the
repulsion of similarly charged magnets. Changing the
polarity of one magnet causes attraction; similarly,
changing one of the opposing ideas, emotions, or
actions produces conflict resolution, and wholeness.
Perls (1969) proposed that listening to oneself
discuss or externalize the polarity fosters
reconciliation of the differences and enables the
client to become psychologically whole. He called his
hot seat technique "Gestalt psychotherapy" because good
psychological health requires the wholeness (or
Gestalt) of different parts of the personality.
4
Another approach similar to Moreno's auxiliary
chair technique evolved from Greenberg's (1979)
research on conflict resolution. Like Moreno,
Greenberg uses a multiple chair technique in a
client/therapist relationship. According to Greenberg
1979), the two chairs represent the two sides of a
personality split, each side characterized by a
different, conflicting verbal performance pattern.
Switching from one chair to another forces clients to
confront or externalize these conflicting patterns.
For example, clients might exhibit a whining and
excusing pattern of speech in one chair, but exhibit an
objective and identifying pattern when sitting in the
opposite chair. While resolving personal conflict
(i.e., working on the differences between the chairs)
was the original goal of Greenberg's (1980) two chair
technique, this therapy has also been recommended for
resolving decision conflict (Greenberg & Webster,
1982), but no empirical test has yet been done.
Decision conflict has been defined as
psychological distress caused by a decision which
produces perceived risk and therefore leaves the
individual dissatisfied (Greenberg & Webster, 1982).
The person regrets the decision and therefore is not
committed to it. Decision conflict can be so aversive
5
that people avoid making decisions.
The psychological components of decision making
are conflict, choice, and commitment (Janis & Mann,
1977). As all options during decision making appear to
have some degree of risk, the alternative which
minimizes risk tends to be selected, produce greater
commitment, and lessen conflict on the part of the
decision maker (Janis & Mann, 1977). On the other
hand, if the decision involves doing something novel,
the individual lacks an awareness of the risks and is
more likely to experience conflict. It then appears
reasonable that the effectiveness of the Gestalt two
chair technique for resolving decision conflict can
best be assessed using persons deciding to do something
novel, specially if the decision clearly involves risk.
In the present study, students who have decided to do a
novel task (present a paper at a psychology convention
for the first time) are exposed to the Gestalt two
chair technique in order to determine empirically its
effectiveness for resolving decision conflict. Based
on Greenberg and Webster's (19S2) study, it was
hypothesized that sUbjects exposed to the Gestalt two
chair technique, in contrast to those not exposed,
would demonstrate reduced anxiety, increased
performance, and heightened mood.
6
CHAPTER 2
METHOD
SUbjects
This study used 12 volunteer undergraduates
participating for the first time in the paper
presentation competition at the Kansas Great Plains
Student's Conference at Wesleyan University, Lincoln,
Nebraska, on April 7 and 8, 1989. There were nine
female sUbjects and three male sUbjects.
Design
SUbjects were randomly assigned to either of two
groups reSUlting in a 2 (Intervention: present or
absent) X 2 (Test: pretest and postest) mixed factorial
design with Intervention as a between and Test a within
sUbjects independent variable. The dependent variables
were state anxiety, performance, and mood.
Materials
The consent form (see Appendix A), approved by the
Human Research Boards of Emporia State university,
Emporia, Kansas, and Nebraska Wesleyan University,
Lincoln, Nebraska, was typed on a 8" X 11 1/2" sheet of
white typing paper. The Spielberger Anxiety Inventory
Form Y (see Appendix B) is a self evaluation
questionnaire which measures state anxiety. The test
Y-l consists of 20 items, such as "I feel calm"
7
followed by a four point scale with 1 being "not at
all", 2 "somewhat", 3 "moderately so", and 4 "very much
so". The test takes approximately ten minutes to
complete. Instructions are printed on the test form
(see Appendix B), and the questions place emphasis on
the person's current emotional state. The score is
determined by adding the 20 values corresponding to the
sUbjects' responses. The minimum score is 20 with a
maximum score of 80. The norm for college students is
37.12 (Spielberger, Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1970).
Performance was measured with a 9 point Likert
scale rating from extremely poor to excellent
performance (see Appendix C). The performance score
for each sUbject was the numerical value corresponding
to the point marked by the sUbject on the scale with
the minimum of 1 and a maximum of 9. Mood was assessed
using the Wessman and Ricks (1966) Elation-Depression
scale (see Appendix D) which contains eleven statements
ranging from extremely sad to extremely happy. The
sUbjects' score was the number of the marked statement.
The minimum score was 1 (very depressed) and the
maximum was 11 (very elated).
Procedure I'~
The sUbjects were individually administered the
pretests by a 38 year old white, female research
8
assistant in a classroom which had a long conference
table with two chairs for the sUbjects. The assistant
was trained prior to the experiment on how to give the
tests. After welcoming the sUbjects, The assistant
instructed them to read and sign the consent form. The
assistant then read each test's instructions and told
the sUbjects to answer the questions based on
anticipating their paper presentations later in the
day. After completing the anxiety, performance, and
mood pretests, the control sUbjects were told to return
for the posttests after their presentations, which
followed within thirty minutes of the pretest session.
The experimental sUbjects, on the other hand, were
individually sent across the hall where they were
greeted by the experimenter, a 38 year old white male,
who asked the sUbject to be seated in one of the three
chairs in the room. The chairs were arranged so that
the sUbject would be able to move to another empty
chair.
After being seated, the experimenter then
explained to the sUbjects that the two chair technique
permitted them to confront their feelings and behaviors
associated with their upcoming presentations. The
subjects were told that they would be switching chairs
as discussion changed from feelings to behaviors. The
9
treatment began with the sUbjects responding to the
question, "Could you tell me how you perceive risk with
you paper presentation?" A typical response was,
"There seems to be a lot of risk involved with doing
the presentation, not only with the time spent
preparing presentation, not only with the time spent
preparing the presentation, but with the expectations
of support staff wanting me to do my best."
After the first question was answered, the
experimenter asked the subject to move to the other
chair and then asked, "How do you feel about presenting
a paper at this conference?" A typical response was "I
feel very tense, anxious, and uncomfortable." After
exploring the subjects' feelings, the experimenter
requested each sUbject to move back to the other chair.
Each subject was asked, "Now that we know and
understand your feelings behind presenting your paper,
will you tell me the behaviors associated with
presenting?" The subjects typically started their
behavior discussion with, "My throat will be dry and I
will probably be shaking, somewhat."
When the discussion of behaviors was complete, the
experimenter asked, "Will you tell me how you think
feelings affect your behaviors?" Usually, the
discussion was brief with the sUbjects concluding, "I
10
realize feelings and behaviors are sometimes difficult
to separate." Following this statement, the individual
sUbjects were asked, "00 you feel you can do your
presentation right now, or do you need some time to
adjust from this treatment?" Upon the response of the
sUbject, the experimenter either released the sUbject
for the transition from treatment to the presentation.
Each sUbject was asked if they were ready for their
presentation before the experimenter released them.
Approximately five minutes were used for the
introduction and fifteen minutes for the treatment.
The remaining ten minutes were used to help students
prepare for the transition from the treatment to the
presentation. This total of 25 minutes were consistent
across all experimental sUbjects. The experimenter was
experienced with the two chair technique and had been
certified by Dr. Philip wurtz, a professor, for
effectiveness using this technique (see Appendix E for
certifying letter).
After each sUbject gave the individual
presentation, the sUbjects from both groups returned to
the testi~g room for the posttests. Each was given the
posttest by the assistant who instructed the sUbjects
to base their answers from the perspective of having
given the presentation instead of when they took the
11
tests before the presentation. When each sUbject
finished, they were given the name and address of the
experimenter should they feel the need to discuss any
part of the treatment or experiment. Those sUbjects
interested in the outcome of the experiment were also
told they would be notified if they provided their
addresses.
12
CHAPTER 3
RESULTS
All three independent variables were analyzed with
a 2 (Technique: present or absent) X 2 (Test: pretest
and posttest) mixed factor analysis of variance with
Technique as a between sUbjects variable and Test as a
within sUbjects variables. The results of the analysis
of variance for each measure are included in Tables 1,
3, and 5. Tables 2, 4, and 6 contain means and
standard deviations for each of the dependent measures.
Table 7 contains the Pearson correlation matrix for
pretest and posttest scores for all three dependent
measures.
For anxiety (see Table 1), only the Test main
effect was significant, E(1,10) = 24.85, 2 < .001.
Subjects at pretest (M = 48.33, SO = 9.25) were feeling
more anxious that they did at posttest (M = 35.00, SO =
7.36). No significant results were obtained for
performance (see Table 3). For mood (see Table 5), the
Test main effect was significant, E(1,10) = 11.56, 2 <
.01. SUbjects at posttest (M = 8.33, SO = 1.26) were
more elated than they were at pretest (M = 6.92, SO
.68). The only significant correlation was between
posttest mood and posttest performance (r = .69, P <
.05) .
13
Table 1
The Technique X Test Analysis of Variance for Anxiety
between sUbjects SS DF MS F P
Technique 48.17 1 48.17 .45
Error 1063.17 10 106.32
within sUbjects
Test 1066.67 1 1066.67 24.85 .01
Technique X Test .17 1 .17
Error 429.18 10 42.92
Total 2607.33 23
14
Table 2
Means And Standard Deviations: Anxiety
TEST
Pretest Posttest Total
Presence 49.83 36.33 43.08
(7.36) (4.89) (6.13)
TECHNIQUE
Absence 46.83 33.76 40.25
(11.13) (9.83) (10.48)
Total 48.33 35.00 41. 67
(9.25) (7.36) (8.31)
15
Table 3
The Technique X Test Analysis of Variance for Performance
between subjects SS OF MS F P
Technique 2.67 1 2.67 2.55 .14
Error 10.67 10 1. 07
within subjects
Test 4.17 1 4.17 1. 62 .23
Technique X Test .17 1 .17
Error 25.67 10 2.57
Total 43.33 23
16
Table 4
Means And Standard Deviations: Performance
TEST
Pretest Posttest Total
Presence 5.50 6.17 5.83
(1. 05) (2.04) (1. 55)
TECHNIQUE
Absence 6.00 7.00 6.50
(1.10) ( .89) (1.00)
Total 5.75 6.58 6.17
(1. 08) (1.47) (1.28)
17
Table 5
The Technique X Test Analysis of Variance for Mood
between sUbjects 55 OF M5 F P
Technique .38 1 .38 .35
Error 10.75 10 1. 08
within subjects
Test 12.04 1 12.04 11.56 .01
Technique X Test 2.04 1 2.04 1. 96 .19
Error 10.42 10 1. 04
Total 35.63 23
18
Table 6
Means And Standard Deviations: Mood
TEST
Pretest Posttest Total
Presence 7.33 8.17 7.75
( .52) (1.47) (1.00)
TECHNIQUE
Absence 6.50 8.50 7.50
( .84) (1. 05) ( .94)
Total 6.92 8.33 7.63
( .68) (1.26) ( .97)
19
Table 7
The Pearson Correlation Coefficients
Pre-A Post-A Pre-P Post-P Pre-M Post-M
Pre-A 1. 00
Post-A 0.45 1. 00
Pre-P -0.28 -0.39 1. 00
Post-P 0.01 -0.05 -0.34 1. 00
Pre-M -0.10 0.15 -0.03 -0.40 1. 00
Post-M 0.12 -0.12 -0.28 0.69* -0.06 1. 00
Legend:
* = significance at the p < .05 level.
Pre-A = Pretest Anxiety
Post-A = Posttest Anxiety
Pre-P = Pretest Performance
Post-P = Posttest Performance
Pre-M = Pretest Mood
Post-M = Posttest Mood
20
CHAPTER 4
DISCUSSION
The present study attempted to assess the
effectiveness of the Gestalt two chair technique for
reducing decision conflict by measuring sUbjects'
anxiety, performance, and mood. The overall pretest
anxiety mean (see Table 2) of 48.33 was sUbstantially
higher than the norm for college student populations of
37.12 (spielberger, Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1970),
indicating that a higher degree of anxiety existed
prior to the paper presentations. The overall pretest
performance mean of 5.75 indicated an above average
expectation to perform (5 represents average
performance) and the mean pretest mood score of 6.92
indicated sUbjects tended to be feeling positive (6
represents neutral mood). Across all sUbjects, the
posttest anxiety mean (see Table 2) of 35.00 was lower
than the norm for student populations of 37.12,
indicating that a low degree of anxiety existed
following the paper presentations. The overall posttest
performance mean of 6.58 indicated there was an
expectation that performance was good. The mean
posttest mood score of 8.33 indicated sUbjects tended
to be feeling very good and cheerful. Conflict tends
to be characterized by increased anxiety, an
21
expectation of decreased performance, and more negative
mood state (Greenberg & Webster, 1982). Although the
pretest results do not consistently match Greenberg and
Webster's (1982) pattern, the movement in scores from
pretest to posttest for all three dependent variables
are in the direction predicted by conflict resolution,
i.e., lowered anxiety, heightened performance (although
not significant), and a more positive mood. The only
significant correlation also indicates that, at
posttest, more positive mood was matched by greater
assessment of performance.
As both experimental and control groups produced
these changes, the paper presentation itself appears to
be effective in changing the scores in the desired
direction. However, the focus of the present study was
to ascertain the effectiveness of the Gestalt two chair
technique. Unfortunately, the methodology used in the
present study did not permit the independent assessment
of the effectiveness of the experimental treatment
because the posttests were only administered after the
paper presentation. The large change in anxiety and
mood scores from pretest to posttest indicates that an
intermediate change might have been statistically
detectable. To correct this flaw, the author suggests
a design modification such that the pretest follows the
22
treatment. This should effectively separate the
treatment from the task and allow independent
measurement of the treatment's effect.
As a naturally occurring event, paper
presentations are ecologically valid opportunities to
assess the effect of various treatments on performance.
The author recommends that the present study with the
modified design would appropriately determine whether
exposure to the Gestalt two chair technique might
reduce anxiety, increase performance, and elevate mood
prior to paper presentation.
23
References
Deutsch, M. (1969). Conflicts: Productive and destructive. Journal of Social Issues, 25, 7-43.
Greenberg, L. (1979). Resolving splits: The two chair technique. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 17, 310-318.
Greenberg, L. (1980). An intensive analysis of recurring events from the practice of Gestalt therapy. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 17, 143-152.
Greenberg, L. & Webster, M. (1982). Resolving decisional conflict by Gestalt two chair dialogue: Relating process to outcome. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 29, 468-477.
Houston, J. P. (1985). Motivation. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Janis, I. L., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: Psychological analysis of conflict, choice, commitment. New York: Free Press.
Janis, I. L., Kahn, M., & Higginson, W. (1967). Yale studies in attitudes and decisions. New Haven, CT: Yale University PUblishing.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1979). Conflict in the classroom: Controversy and learning. Review of Educational Research, 49, 51-69.
Moreno, J. L. (1946), Psychodrama: Volume 1. New York: Beacon House.
Perls, F. S. (1965). Gestalt therapy and human potentialities. Esalen Paper, No.1.
Perls, F. S. (1969). Gestalt therapy verbatum. Moab, UT: Real People Press.
Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., & Lushene, R. E. (1970). Manual for the state-trait anxiety inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Tiedeman, D. V., & O'Hara, R. P. (1963). Career development: Choice and adjustment. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
24
Tulving, E., & Thomson, D. M. (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. Psychological Review, 80, 352-373.
Wessman, A. E., & Ricks, D. F. (1966). Mood and personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
25
I
;
I1
iI, "1
Appendix A
Human Research Approvals
Consent Forms
Emporia state and Wesleyan Universities
....
,-1~~ " ;2-- . - 'r;.,
~\V :, -.~~" ~-~. \o~. ----'1'<1'\ -IBJ-~~~~ EMPORIA STATE UNIVERSITY
Ir.r: -=-. =- =--:-:-:- ~::.~ -;\ 1200 COMMERCIAL EMPORIA. KANSAS 66801-5087 316/343-1200~;.II:I/ .J RESEARCH AND GRANTS CENTER
;~J!5i~~:/~J->-
April 5, 1989
Lou Bodart-Talbot Division of Psychology
and special Education Box 31 CAMPUS
Dear Mr. Bodart-Talbot:
The Institutional Review Board for Treatment of Human Subj ects has evaluated your appl ication for approval of human subj ect research entitled, "Is the Gestalt Two Chair Technique Effective in Reducing Anxiety outside the Therapeutic Setting?1I The review board agreed unanimously to approve your application which will allow you to begin your research with subjects as outlined ifi your application materials.
Best of luck in your proposed research project. If the review board can help you in any other way, don't hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
~d~ James L. Wolfe Dean of Graduate Studies
and Research
JW:pf
cc: Ken Weaver
BUSINESS· EDUCATION. LIBERAL ARTS AND SCIENCES. LIBRARY AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT AN EQUAL. OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER .....
1
I
IjjI
;'
f SUBJECT CONSENT FORM
ID _
Please read the following statements and, if you agree with them, sign your name at the bottom.
1 agree to participate in a study conducted by Lou Talbot and his graduate assistants. The purpose of this study is to investigate student paper presentations at a convention in Lincoln, Nebraska. 1 am aware that 1 can discontinue participation in this study at any time.
1 realize that approximately forty-five minutes of my time will be required for participation in this study. 1 understand that my confidentiality will be respected and neither my name nor any identifying data will be used in any report of this research.
Having considered the above factors, 1 hereby consent and agree to participate in the study.
5i gnature of parti ci pant ~._ .
..
at~OS A~alXUV a~~~s
a xlPuaddv<
9<:
SELF-EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE
Developed by Charles D. Spielberger in collaboration with
R. L. Gorsuch, R. Lushene, P. R. Vagg, and G. A. Jacobs
STAI Form Y-l
Name Date S __
Age Sex: M F __ T_
DIRECTIONS: A number of statements which people have used to describe themselves are given below. Read each statement and then ·I/. I~
r.)/.) <:yblacken in the appropriate circle to the right of the statement to indi 'r ;/.~ / . .Jr. r.) ("{ 1/cate how you feel right now, that is, at this moment. There are no right .)/. //.- (r.I//..
or wrong answers. Do not spend too much time on anyone statement ·"{j.I'j '{j. /'''.."{/ /'/. ,sr ·5 .)
./ /. .) rbut give the answer which seems to describe your present feelings best.
I. I feci calm (iI (2) @ (4)
2. I feci secure CD (2) @ (41
3. I am tense CD (?) (3) (4)
4. I feci strainecl CD CD G) Q
5. I feci at ease CD (2) (3") (4)
6. I feci upset . CD (2) (3) (~)
7. I am presently worrying over possible l11is["ortul1es CD CD (j) (4)
8. I feci satisfied . CD C-~ @ (~';,
9. I feel frightened 0) (2) (3) 8)
10. I feci comfortable . CD (2) @ (4)
11. I feel self-confident . CD @ G) (4)
~~,12. I feel nervous . CD Q) @
13. I am jittery CD CD (3) (~)
14. I feci indecisive CD (1) (3) (4,
15. I am re \axed (l) Q.) (j) (4)
16. I feci content CD 0) (3) (~)
17. I am worried CD CD (j) (4)
18. I feel confused CD CD (3) (4)
19. I feel steady CD CD ct' (4)
20. I feci pleasant CD (2) (J) (4)
Consulting Psychologists Press 577 College Avenue, Palo Alto, California 9430{i
27
Appendix C
Likert Performance Scale
To report the rating of your performance, circle the appropriate level that applies to you at this time.
I-represents extremely poor performance
2-represents very poor performance
3-represents poor performance
4-represents below average performance
5-represents average performance
6-represents above average performance
7-represents extremely good performance
a-represents marginally excellent performance
9-represents excellent performance
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9
28
Appendix D
Wessman and Ricks Mood Scale
Please read all the following statements, then circle the number that corresponds to how you feel now.
1. Utterly depressed and gloomy. Completely down. All is black and leaden.
2. Tremendously depressed. Feeling terrible, miserable, "just awful".
3. Depressed and feeling very low. Definitely "blue".
4. Spirits low and somewhat "blue".
5. Feeling a bit low. Just so-so.
6. Feeling neutral.
7. Feeling pretty good, "O.K.".
8. Feeling very good and cheerful.
9. Elated and in high spirits.
10. Very elated and in very high spirits. Tremendous delight and buoyancy.
11. Complete elation. Rapturous joy and soaring ecstasy .
..
z:p:nM •.:IQ
.:Ia~~a~ uOl~eolJl~.:Ia~
:3: xlpuaddV
6~
,,\ '"0"""~'_"~ C,}',1'-_~ ~,- '- , / i>-~- ' ...~
t--=-m.:~rlfll: \'~ EMPORIA STATE UNIVERSITY ~m-=f)} '2OO~M~ EM~'~KANSAS'--~7 3>6/343-'200
\> ,,- /~.;/
February 7, 1988
Te: Emporia State University Human Subjects Committee RE: Research using Gestalt two-chair technique
I have reviewed video tapes of Lou Talbat, and I think he has mastered the
Gestalt technique he is using in his research. He is a good counselor in using
the techniques, and I know he will be professional in his application of these
techniques in his research.
PlJ'o ttLPhili~ tz, Ph.D~fessor Division 0 Counselor Education and Rehabilitation Programs
BUSINESS· EDUCATION. LIBERAL ARTS AND SCIENCES· LIBRARY AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
IIIIlIIf,